Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Arkansas State Capitol

Arkansas State Capitol edit

Original - The Arkansas State Capitol in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Reason: Large resolution, handsome composition, obvious EV in article.
Articles this image appears in: Arkansas State Capitol
Creator: Daniel Schwen

Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question. Not meaning to sound too dopey, but I would assume it's not really curved like that? And any reason it was taken from this angle rather than front-on where the assumed curve may have been avoided? --jjron (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't assume to know the artistic preferences of the original photographer, but I did find this blurb, which may or may not explain the apparent curvature: "It's not the kind of thing you'll notice unless somebody points it out to you, but the foundation of the State Capitol is tilted. The original plan was to have the building face squarely down 5th Street so that a visitor approaching on Capitol Avenue would be impressed by the architectural majesty of the building. But as sometimes happens with public projects things go awry from the very beginning and the foundation was laid about nine degrees off square."

OK, interesting titbit, but a tilt and a curve aren't the same thing. --jjron (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pano, so it's a really funky projection. Unencyclopedic, even. Oppose. MER-C 10:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pano, so it's a really funky projection. Unencyclopedic, even. With the amount of panoramic images that have been promoted on this page I cannot think of an appropriate response to this statement that could not be interpreted as a personal attack. I'll just give up. --Dschwen 01:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like so? Trust me I walked around plenty in front of this building to find the best possible angle. front-on isn't it. --Dschwen 23:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Looking at the map it shouldn't need a cylindrical projection. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Surprised to see this here. It is not using a cylindrical projection, it uses a spherical (equirectangular) projection. The alternative is rectilinear, but that distorts the proportions on the sides. I wonder what map you base your assessment on? There is no way to gain more distance from the subject. I made a conscious choice with the projection to get the most natural looking representation. You can either believe me that I succeeded, or.. ..I guess not. --Dschwen 22:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google maps. What are you surprised to see? Complaints about an unnecessarily misleading image? There does seem to be a vantage point across the road somewhere: [1], [2], [3]. If you didn't have access then a shot is clearly possible at street level: [4], [5]. I'd suggest a restitch. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Surprised to see it nominated here. Well, thank you for your suggestion, but given that this image is already featured on three other projects I think I stick with this version. Which incidently is what I think the best option in any case. --Dschwen 01:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support – not that it makes much difference as it looks to have run out of time, but this only lacks a caveat on the image page to explain the distortion created by the projection; something like the {{autostitch}} template. We should always add that to panos, IMO. I really like this shot and with that caveat it has huge EV. --mikaul^talk 22:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is already mentioned in the description. And: sheeesh Autostitch?! Are you trying to insult me ;-)? I added the {{Hugin}} template to clarify further. --Dschwen 17:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course not, I was trying to insult you by suggesting you mark your image as distorted ;-)~ My (badly-made) point is that, for all panos, merely pointing out that a pic stitched isn't enough to explain to a viewer why the fairly rectilinear building he saw on holiday appears curved in the encyclopedia. It's obvious to a few but not to many, that certain projections produce distorted thumbnail views, ie the image must be viewed in a particular way to properly appreciate it. It's not just buildings; describing this recently promoted image as "360º pano" isn't enough to explain to most viewers that the tarn is on the walkers' right as they ascend to the peak. Pointing out the need to horizontally scroll it (at least) or use a pano viewer (ideally) isn't just a courtesy, it reveals immense envcyclopedic value. It's unfair to single out your image in this way of course. Cross-posting to talk. --mikaul^talk 20:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice pano, distortion is inevitable (heck even our eyes do it). The trees do block out quite a bit of the building though, any chance of removing them, take another set of photos, and then reattach them :p? --antilived^{T | C | G} 03:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 192 FCs served} 09:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]